Mackie Motors survives strike-out bid in Henderson v Henderson dispute with Renault and Nissan

The Circuit Commercial Court has refused to strike out a Scottish car dealer's £18 million claim against Renault, Nissan and their finance arm, rejecting arguments that the litigation amounted to an abuse of process by revisiting matters that could have been raised in earlier proceedings.

Handing down judgement on 17 August 2026 in Mackie Motors (Brechin) Limited v Renault UK Limited & Ors, Lance Ashworth KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, dismissed applications by Renault UK Limited, Nissan Motor (GB) Limited and RCI Financial Services Limited to strike out the claim under the rule in Henderson v Henderson, and separately refused summary judgement in the defendants' favour.

Mackie Motors (MMBL) had operated as a franchised Renault, Nissan and Dacia dealer in the north east of Scotland for decades before its collapse in late 2021. RCI, the group's finance provider, had submitted a suspicious activity report to the National Crime Agency after forming the view that MMBL was involved in money laundering connected to loan transactions between Panamanian and Ukrainian entities. Days later, Renault and Nissan cut MMBL's access to the ordering systems needed to run its dealerships, and RCI served notices terminating its financing arrangements on seven days' notice.

MMBL's first attempt to challenge these events, brought against RCI alone in the Business and Property Courts in Leeds, failed at every stage. An application for an interim injunction was refused in December 2021, and a subsequent attempt to plead an implied "umbrella agreement" binding RCI, Renault and Nissan, and to join the manufacturers as parties, was struck out by Mr Simon Gleeson sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in 2022, with the Court of Appeal dismissing MMBL's appeal in 2023.

In July 2025, MMBL issued a fresh claim against all three companies, this time alleging that Renault and Nissan had repudiated implied terms of the dealership agreements by cutting off system access, that RCI had induced or procured those breaches, and that RCI had separately breached a used vehicle stocking agreement by failing to obtain fair value when it repossessed and sold stock. The defendants argued this was, in substance, the same claim dressed in new legal clothing, and should have been brought during the earlier litigation.

The judge disagreed as regards Renault and Nissan, finding it significant that neither had ever been a party to the earlier claim, nor been represented at any hearing in it. Applying the broad, merits-based assessment required by Johnson v Gore Wood & Co, he held there was nothing to suggest the new claim amounted to unjust harassment or oppression, and declined to treat MMBL's decision to plead its case differently, following a change of legal team, as inherently abusive.

The inducement claim against RCI was allowed to proceed on similar grounds, the judge accepting that evidence from a former RCI employee, whose account only came to light in late 2023, could not have supported such a claim any earlier. The smaller claim relating to the stocking agreement was also permitted to continue, the judge finding it added no meaningful complexity to the proceedings.

On causation, the judge indicated he considered the defendants' position, that MMBL's losses flowed from the lawful withdrawal of RCI finance rather than the loss of system access, more likely to succeed at trial. However, resolving that question at this stage would have required an impermissible mini-trial, and summary judgement was refused accordingly.